... here is a re-post of the super-simplified version of the rules,
authored by John Tromp and myself. They are essentially the New Zealand
rules, re-worded to be as simple and elegant as possible. The NZ rules
are in turn the simplest version of Chinese-style rules around. The
NZ rules are worded with definitions given recursively, [which may
be hard to read.] John Tromp came up with the key idea of a stone "seeing"
(or as I've presently worded it "reaching") a different color. This was
the brilliant step which enabled such succinct rules. My modest contribution
was the wording for the end-of-game criterion, and putting an expansion
into a second tier of interpretations rather than rules. This was (1)
to keep the logical rules as simple as possible, and (2) to keep things
close to how the game is actually played by humans.

...

Before giving them, let me just re-iterate the motivations for wanting
to adopt Chinese-style rules. They are by far the simplest, most elegant,
most easily worded, and most easily umpired of the main rule sets.
The matter of when the game finishes, and what is dead/removable, in
particular, is far more logical and simple than in the Japanese variants,
where the main motivations seem to be undue respect for tradition,
and a feeling for the "beauty of omission".... It is of PARTICULAR concern
that the rules be made as "natural" and comprehensible as possible for
beginners, so that they not be turned away from the game by puzzlement
or outrage, notably at the unfair-looking "free removal" of scoring prisoners
at the end of the game. Many of us have known this to happen with promising
beginners. Western countries especially cannot afford this kind of
wastage of recruits.

Another point which has come up in email is this. There are four main
areas in which Chinese and Japanese rules differ, and are effectively
independent of one another. So in principle there are 2x2x2x2 = 16
ways of forming the rules, in these respects. Only the first difference
is crucial.

(i) The whole network of rules concerning scoring; prisoners; end of
the game; passing; removable stones; special positions; when are extra
moves needed. This is "the" defining difference between the two rulesets.
Chinese is far and away the simpler, by a country mile.

(ii) The ko rules. Japanese is simpler, but has an annoying gap:-
non-games resulting from long cycles. Chinese is more elegantly wordable.

(iii) Suicide. Neutral; I have a slight preference for allowing it.
(It allows slightly more options, thus more exercise of skill.)

(iv) Where to put handicap stones. I much prefer the Chinese "free-placing"
style - more game variation, and more opportunity for exercising skill.

So, to the rules.

Some people may object that I've "cheated" by relegating many concepts
to `comments and interpretations', and have thus kept the core rules
artificially concise. However I don't think so. The core rules are
precisely those that (e.g.) a computer or game-theoretician needs to
know; which surely qualifies them as being the "real" rules. The remaining
`comments and interpretations' are merely about those matters that
real live players have to worry about for reasons of convenience, impatience,
and a desire (usually) to play with physical equipment.

It should be noted that (especially for tournaments) there would need
to be a further layer of rules and proprieties concerning things like
clocks and time, physical disturbances, ambiguous placements, getting
unfair advice, and so on. (What Barry Phease succinctly dubbed "not
rules of the game, but rules about playing the game".) I have completely
ignored such matters.

TROMP-TAYLOR CONCISE RULES OF GO.

--------------------------------------

THE LOGICAL RULES

1. Go is played is on a 19x19 square grid of points, by two
players called black and white.

2. Each point on the grid may be colored black, white or empty.
A point P is said to reach a color C, if there is a path of orthogonally
adjacent points of P's color from P to a point of color C.

3. Starting with an empty grid, the players have alternate turns,
black first.

4. A turn is either a pass; or a move that does not leave a
grid pattern identical to one that that player has previously left.

5. A move consists of coloring an empty point one's own color;
then emptying all the opponent-colored points that don't then reach
empty; and then emptying all the player's own-colored points that don't
then reach empty.

6. The game ends after two consecutive passes.

7. A player's score is the number of points of his color, plus
the number of empty points that don't reach the opponent's color.

8. The player with the larger score at the end of the game is
the winner. If the scores are equal at the end, it is a tie.

COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS.

1. The grid of points is usually marked by a set of 19x19 lines
on a wooden board. Each player has an arbitrarily large set of stones
of his own color. By prior agreement a rectangle of different dimensions
may be used.

3. For handicap games, the weaker player may be awarded a handicap
of "n stones"; which means he is black and starts with n consecutive
moves.

4. "Has left previously" means by either a move or a pass.

5. Using boards, coloring an empty point means placing a stone
of one's own color on the point, (a line intersection of the board).
Coloring a point empty, i.e. emptying a point, means removing the
stone from it.

6. A player who says "pass", must be interpreted as saying "This
is to be considered a formal pass if you make another move; and also
if you say pass and we then agree to remove the obvious dead stones
still on the board; but if we disagree on these then it is still your
turn." Then if both players say "pass", but disagree on removal, the
second speaker's concession of turn (being later) over-rides the first,
and the first speaker moves again. It should then be a matter of propriety
that any subsequent saying of "pass" should be phrased "I formally pass",
and be accepted as binding as in rules 6 and 7.

7. The scores can be conveniently counted after removal per
interpretation 6 has occurred, by counting up each player's points
on the board as it then stands. (There is an alternative method involving
putting removed stones back on the board and re-arranging all the stones;
but this is not recommended for learners.)

8. By prior agreement, for games between equals, a fixed amount
can be added to white's final score. This is called "komi", and is commonly
7 points.

--------------------------------------

Grateful acknowledgement to John Tromp for most of the ideas here,
and for many helpful comments and conversations on these matters.

Recently I read "Taylor's Concise Rules of Go" on Jan van
der Steen's
I have a question about interpretation comment (6), which says

A player who says "pass", must be interpreted as saying "This is to be
considered a formal pass if you make another move; and also if you
say pass and we then agree to remove the obvious dead stones still
on the board; but if we disagree on these then it is still your
turn." Then if both players say "pass", but disagree on removal, the
second speaker's concession of turn (being later) overrides the first,
and the first speaker moves again.

This is quite complex, even if it is `just' an interpretation.
My question is about the word "your" on the indicated line: shouldn't
this be "my"? Because the subsequent explanation says that after two
passes "the first speaker moves again," which I presume to be the player
first saying "pass".

Looks like it should be.

Which brings me to a simpler alternative for the above
comment:

The first time both players pass consecutively, they may either agree
to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board and end the game,
or play on if they disagree on removal.

Is this correct? Or am I missing something?

Yes, this is a simpler alternative. The reason Bill chose a more elaborate
formulation is to keep in line with the core rules, which demand that
the game be over after two passes. In my own formulation of the rules
(http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/go.html), I also take the liberty of deviating
from the core rules, by stating:

As a practical shortcut, the following amendment allows "dead stone
removal":

After only 2 consecutive passes, the players may end the game by agreeing
on which points to empty. After 4 consecutive passes, the game ends
as is.

This is very much like your proposal, except that it allows players
to repeatedly disagree. I can allow this without fear of endless arguing,
since 4 consecutive passes can only be avoided by placing at least
one stone in every continuation, which the superko rule puts a bound
on...

A player who says "pass", must be interpreted as saying "This is to be
considered a formal pass if you make another move; and also if you
say pass and we then agree to remove the obvious dead stones still
on the board; but if we disagree on these then it is still your
turn." Then if both players say "pass", but disagree on removal, the
second speaker's concession of turn (being later) overrides the first,
and the first speaker moves again.

This is quite complex, even if it is `just' an interpretation.

I agree. It *is* annoyingly convoluted, but all my attempts to improve
it have left worse problems. Any help would be *much* appreciated.

question is about the word "your" on the indicated line:
shouldn't this be "my"?

No; it should be "your". However I don't blame you for the mistake!
I will try to elucidate with a couple of mini-scenarios below.

Because the subsequent explanation says that after two
passes "the first speaker moves again," which I presume to be the player
first saying "pass".

Correct. Remember if one says "pass" the other can move again COME WHAT
MAY, and with area counting this need never be harmful to him. So
if either has the slightest doubt, they should just MOVE at every opportunity.

The first time both players pass consecutively, they may either agree
to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board and end the game,
or play on if they disagree on removal.

I agree, this has exactly the same effect. However, I don't like having
such a thing in the *logical* rules - these have no place for any "discussions".

However, if you meant that your paragraph should be in the explanations
etc, maybe this could be good. But not just as is, or there would
be a conflict between 2 passes ending the game (in the core rules),
and not necessarily ending it (in the explanations). So there would
still have to be, before your paragraph, a convention/expanation that:
*saying* "pass" did NOT necessarily mean making a game-theoretic pass,
unless the opponent moved again.

It would be nice to see if all this could be made both shorter and
more readable than my version. I sincerely hope it can, and await
help.